On the acquisition of object A’ dependencies. and experimental... · This is the elephant that...

transcript

OntheacquisitionofobjectA’dependencies.

Relativeclauses (andwh-questions),ClLDandintervention-locality (comprehension)

RELATIVECLAUSES(ANDWH-QUESTIONS )

SubjectandObjectrelativesSubjectRelative:

(…)[il bambino[che ___pettina lamamma] ](…)

thekidthatcombsthemother

ObjectRelative:

(…)[il bambino[che lamammapettina __]](…)thekidthatthemothercombs

ExampleofawaytoelicittheproductionofSRsandORs:Picturedescription

Questo è l’elefante che bagna il leoneThis istheelephantthatwetsthelion

Questo è lelefante che il leone bagnaThis istheelephant thatthelionwets

Inthesepicturesthereisanelephantandalion.Inonepicturetheelephantwetsthethelionintheotherpicturethelionwetstheelephant.Whichelephantisthis?Thisistheelephant….

ImageskindlymadeavailablebyNaama Friedmann

Summaryofresults:Comprehension

Friedmann,Belletti,Rizzi(2009)

Children’sage:3;7–5;0- Hebrew

Materials:Pictures

Showmethelion thattheelephantwets>>ORShowmethelion thatwetstheelephant>>SR

Experiment1:ThecomprehensionofHeadedSubjectandObjectrelativeclauses

SR:Tarelietha-para she-menasheket etha-tarnegolet.Showto-meacc the-cow that-kissesacc the-chicken

Showmethecowthatiskissingthechicken.

OR:Tarelietha-pil she-ha-arie martiv.Showto-meacc the-elephant that-the-lionwets

Showmetheelephantthatthelioniswetting.

ResultsofExperiment1

HeadedSubjectrelative

HeadedObject

relative

Combined pictures and scenarios 90% 55%

No. of participants of 22 who performed above chance

Group-level abovechance

Yes No

Table 1. Percentage of correct responses and number of participants who performed above chance.

Headedsubject relative

Headedobject

relative

Resumptiveobject

relative

Combined 90% 55% 56%

No. of participants of 22 who performed above chance 22 7 6

Group-level abovechance?

Yes No No

Table 2. Percentage of correct responses and number of participants who performed above chance for objectrelatives with a resumptive pronoun, compared to other types of headed relative clauses.

ResultsofExperiment2:Comprehensionofheadedobjectrelativeswitharesumptive pronoun

Headedsubject

relative

Headedobject

relative

resumptive pronoun

object relative

FreeSubject

relative

Freeobject relative

Combined 90% 55% 56% 84% 79%No. of

participants of 22 above chance 22 7 6 18 17

Group-levelAbove

chance(?)Yes No No Yes Yes

Results ofExperiment3:Thecomprehensionoffreerelatives

Examples ofFreeRelatives tested

FreeSR

Tarelietmi she-martiv etha-yeledShowto-meAcc whothatwetsAcc the-boy

FreeOR

Tarelietmi she- ha-yeled menadnedShowto-meAcc whothattheboyswings_

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ResultsofExperiment4:Thecomprehensionofheadedobjectrelativeswithanimpersonalarbitrarypro subject

Headedsubject relative

Headedobject relative

resumptive pronoun

object relative

FreeSubject relative

Freeobject relative

Impersonal pro object

relative

Combined 90% 55% 56% 84% 79% 83%

No. of participants of 22 above chance 22 7 6 18 17 19Group-levelAbovechance ..

Yes No No Yes Yes Yes

ResultsofExperiment5:Thecomprehensionofwhichandwhoquestions(different groupofchildren)

The comprehension of who and which subject and object questions

Who Sub.

Which Sub. Who Obj. Which

3;7-4;5 80% 75% 72% 57%4;6-4;10 84% 84% 81% 58%Total 81% 78% 75% 58%Children above chance Out of 22

15 14 14 4

Group-level abovechance Yes Yes Yes No

Examples ofwho andwhich questionsS

Who - bites - thecat

Which dog- bites - thecat

Whom - thecat - bites __

Which dog- thecat - bites __

ComparingthecomprehensionofSRandORinchildrenwithSLI

Age Simple SVO Subjectrelative

Object relative

Four-year-olds 4;0–5;0 93.5 85.5 58

Six-year-olds 5;11–6;5 99 95 86

SLI 7;3–11;2 96.5 98.5 62

FromN.Friedmann&R.NovogrodskyTheacquisitionofrelativeclausecomprehensioninHebrew:astudyofSLIandnormaldevelopment,J.Ch.L.31,2004.

SummaryfromFBR2009I.headedsubjectrelative: DNPR..... <DNP> DNP ok

II. headedobject relative: DNPR..... D NP…<D NP> *

III. resumptive object relative: D NPR .....D NP…pronoun *

IV.freesubjectrelative: Wh R.....<Wh>…DNP ok

V. freeobject relative: Wh R.....DNP…<Wh> ok

VI.(impersonal)pro objectrel: DNPR..... pro arb …pronoun ok

VII.subjectwhoquestion: Wh Q..... <Wh>... DNP ok

VIII.objectwhoquestion: Wh Q..... DNP …<Wh> ok

IX.subjectwhichquestion: Wh NPQ.....<WhNP>…DNP ok

X. objectwhichquestion: Wh NPQ..... DNP…<WhNP> * 15

SummaryfromFBR2009inagraph(ComprehensioninHebrewORs)

Why:LocalityandIntervention

Buildingonalonglasting traditionoftheoreticalworkinformalsyntax

ProposalinFriedmann,Belletti,Rizzi 2009:Thesameprinciple accountingforthelocalityofsyntacticcomputationsaccountsforthedifficultywithOrs,and,moregenerally,ofobjectA’-dependencies.

Featural RelativizedMinimality

(Rizzi,1990,2004,Starke2001;Minimal searchChomsky2001andrelatedwork)

LocalityandIntervention:RelativizedMinimality

X……Z…..Y

The dependency between X (target) and Y (origin) cannotbe

established if Z structurally intervenes, and Z and X are positions that share relevantfeatures (Rizzi 1990, 2004, Starke2001…;Minimal search, Chomsky 2001).

A nominal feature, [+NP]:

Lexical restriction among the features relevant for the locality principle

Theinclusionrelationandtherelevanceofthe+NPfeature

?Which problem do[youwonder [how [tosolve__]]]?

Which problem ….. how ….. <which problem>

+Q,+NP +Q

vs(identity)

*What doyou wonder howtosolve <what>

+NP:Insome Italiandialectswhich-typequetions target adifferent posisition compared towhoquestionsintheleft periphery (Munaro 1998)

Crucialrelevanceofthetarget: *Howdoyou wonder which problem tosolve <how>?

HeadedOR.MovingintotherelativeCP:attractinga+NPlexicalheadoftherelativeclause

R+NP2….FinP

2that TP

5……….[…+NP]…..…

InterventioninheadedORswithalexicalsubjectintherelativeclause:Inclusionofthenominalfeature[+NP]!!!!SR:!!(…)![the!elephant!![that!!<___>!!wets!the!lion]! ]!(…)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!+R,!+NP!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!OR:!(…)![the!lion!!!!![that!!!the!elephant!!!wets!!!!!<___>! ]]!(…)! ! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!+R,+NP$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$+NP$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$<___>$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$!!!!!!!!!!!Children have difficulty in computing the feature-inclusion relation, both incomprehension and in production (on which see below), whence theirdifficulty with ORs. >> FBR’s conjecture to interpret development.

FBR(2009):settheoretic approach tointerpretdevelopment

Children Adults

identity: +A… +A… <+A> * *

inclusion: +A,+B…+B….<+A,+B> * ok

disjunction: +A… +B … <+A> ok ok

Featurestoconsider/reviewGender

Number

Animacy

Mismatch condition for[+NP]lexically restricted

Relative head(/which wh)___ Preverbal lexicalsubject

GenderofX-TargetandZ-Intervener.Belletti,Friedmann,Brunato,Rizzi (2012)

HebrewSRsamegender:

Tare li et ha-isha she-mecayeret etha-yalda.

Show to-me acc the-woman(fem) that-draws-femacthe-girl(fem)

'Showmethewoman thatdrawsthegirl.’

SRdifferentgender:

Tarelietha-rofe she-mecayer etha-yalda.

Showto-meacc the-doctor(masc)that-draws-mascacc the-girl(fem)

'Showmethe(male)doctor thatdrawsthegirl.’

ORsamegender:

Tarelietha-yalda she-ha-isha mecayeret.

Show to-meacc the-girl(fem) that-the-woman(fem) draws-fem

'Showmethegirlthatthewomandraws.’

ORdifferentgender:

Tarelietha-yalda she-ha-rofe mecayer.

Show to-meacc the-girl(fem) that-the-doctor(masc) draws-masc

'Showmethegirlthatthe(male)doctor draws.‘

31children aged3;9-5;5 (M=4;7,SD=0;5)

Italian

SRsamegender

Mostramilabambina chedisegnaladonna

Show-to-me thegirl(fem) thatdrawsthewoman (fem)

'Showmethegirlthatdrawsthemother.'

SRdifferentgender:

Mostramilabambina chedisegnaildottore

Show-to-me thegirl(fem) thatdrawsthedoctor (masc)

'Showmethegirlthatdrawsthedoctor.‘

ORsamegender:

Mostramilabambinachelamammadisegna

Show-to-methegirl(fem)thatthewoman(fem)draws

'Showmethegirl thatthemotherdraws.'

ORdifferentgender:

Mostramiildottorechelabambinadisegna

Show-to-methedoctor(masc)thatthegirl (fem)draws'Showmethe(male)doctorthatthegirldraws.‘

31childrenaged3;9-5;3(M=4;7,SD=0;5)

Materialusedinthesamegender/differentgenderconditions

Hebrew: Percentage of correct responses

Subject relative same gender

Subject relative different gender

Object relative same gender

Object relative different gender

Average 85% 89% 67% 81%SD 12% 13% 15% 13%

Italian:: Percentageof correct responses

Subject relative

same gender

Subject relative different gender

Object relative

same gender

Object relative different gender

Average 82% 86% 52% 57%SD 15% 12% 21% 20%

Thedifferent statusofgender forfRM

ProposalinBFBR2012:

OnlyinHebrewGenderisasyntactically active featureinthesenserelevantforthefRM/locality.I.e.:Ithasthestatusofbeinganfeatureattractingmovement, aswitnessedbyverbalgenderagreement.

Hence,onlyinHebrewinterventionisovercomeintheGendermismatchcondition.

ThisconditionyieldsanintersectionfeaturerelationbetweenTargetandIntervener.

Tareliet ha-ylada she- ha-isha

Showto-meacc the-girl(fem)that-the-woman(fem)draws-fem

[+R,+NP,+fem][+NP,+fem]

Tare liet ha-yalda she-ha-rofe

Showto-meacc the-girl(fem)that-the-doctor(masc)draws-masc

[+R,+NP,+fem][+NP,+masc]

mecayeret___

mecayer___

Relationsw.r.t.relevant features betweentargetandintervenerexpressed insettheoretic terms

X Z YChildrenAdults

Identity +A… +A… <+A> * *

Inclusion +A,+B…+B….<+A,+B> * ok

Intersection +A,+B+C…+B,+D…<+A,+B,+C> ok ok

Disjunction +A… +B … <+A> ok ok

Noroleofgender inFrench

Durrleman&Bentea 2017–35Typicallydevelopingchildren4;4-5;6.ExactlythesametestasinHebrewandItalian

Noeffectofgendermismatch(p>.05)

Noroleof gender inGreekAsrecentlyshown byAngelopoulos andTerzi (Gala2017),manipulating GenderinGreekdoes notenhance thecomprehension ofORs(18typically developingchildren tested,4;1to5;2):

Theroleofnumber(vsgender)inItalianNumber has a similar ameliorating effect in Italian in a Number mismatch condition as gender mismatchin Hebrew (Adani, van der Lely, Forgiarini,Guasti 2010):

M: Il leone che il gatto sta toccando e` seduto per terra◦ The lion-SG that the cat-SG is touching is sitting on the ground

MM: Il leone che i coccodrilli stanno toccando e` seduto per terra◦ The lion-SG that the crocs-PLaretouching is sitting on the ground

In the spirit of BFBR (2012):Number enters into agreement relation in Italian, much as Gender does inHebrew; hence it is a featuretowhich the locality/RMprinciple is sensitive as it is an attracting feature.

Crucial role played by the crosslinguistic comparative perspective. No intrinsic role/value of a givenmorphological featureperse.

Percentages*of*correct*comprehension*Feature' Match' G5yo' G7yo' G9yo'Number' M* 41* 79* 85*' MM* 64* 88* 95**

Theroleofnumber(vsgender) inFrench

FromDurrleman&Bentea 2017.Nodifferencewhenagreementisaudibleontheverb.Rather,bettercomprehensionwhenitisnotaudible(i.e.HeadPlural- SubjectSingular)

Effectofnumbermismatch(p<.05)Noeffectoftypeofagreement(p>.05)

FurtherfeaturepossiblyrelevantforfRM:CaseSince we are dealing with a movement created dependency, it is reasonable to thinkthat only features that are implied in triggering syntactic movement be the relevantones, as in the proposal discussed.

New results on the irrelevance of Case distinctions in enhancing the comprehensionof ORs confirm the hypothesis: Case is not a feature relevant in A’-dependencies.Indeed, there are no Case driven A’-processes (Friedmann, Rizzi, Belletti 2017,Glossa), nor is Case a feature triggering movement.

Specifically: no Case inflection on V. T does not establish Agree in Case with thetarget DP. Case is a feature on DP (the goal) not on T (the probe). Case is a nominalfeature not a verbal inflectional feature. The hypothesis is that relevant features arefeatures active on the probe.

In Hebrew (DOM/Differential Object Marking) marking of direct objects does notenhance the comprehension of object A’-dependencies. E.g. the following whichquestions were both relatively poorly understood by young Hebrew speakingchildren, thus indicating that the Case distinction did not help them (with 3 to 4;5worse than 4;6-6;5)

et- andnon-etObjectwhich-questionsinHebrew(Friedmann,Rizzi&Belletti 2017)

InHebrewet-markedandnon-et-markedwhich-object questions arenotfullyunderstood by3;0-6;5 y.o.children, withnodifferencebetween thetwo.

et eize pil ha-arie martiv?

acc which elephant the-lionwets?

eize pil ha-arie martiv?

which elephant the-lionwets?

Comparable resultshavealso beenobtained inthecomprehension ofOVSsentenceswithtopicalized directobjectswithandwithoutet,comparedtosimple SVO.Seelater.

pe- andnon-peObjectRelativesinRomanian(Bentea2016)

FromBentea 2016

Bothtypesareequally poorly comprehended (30%and 29%respectively) by 4to6;10y.o.Romanian-speaking children (datafromBentea 2016:74-75 ,exx.12,13;Figure3.3)

DOMinacquisition

This is especially revealing as DOM properties are early acquired in mostof/all the languages in which the acquisition of DOM has been studied(including e.g. Romanian, Avram 2015).

Same in Hebrew: Reznick & Friedmann (in press) on the error-freerepetition of (360) Hebrew sentences containing a definite direct objectmarkedwith et in very young children in a repetition task.

Case inGreekORs

A similar conclusion has recently been reached by Angelopoulos and Terzi (Gala2017) on the (lack of) role of Case in Greek to build the correct dependency inORs.In the authors’ words:

Version1=Relativeheadnominative(sameCase asextractionsiteinSRs,differentinOrs >>hereisDpnom)Version2=Relativeheadaccusative(sameCase asextractionsiteinOrs >> showmetheDPacc;nosignificantdifferencewhentheheadisnominativeasinversion1.ThisisthecomparablemismatchsituationastheoneintheRomanianexamplesdiscussedearlier).

Morphosyntactic features:Thespecialstatusofattracting features

In conclusion, the crucial property is not that much whether there is an intervener - as the features ofthe lexical subject may be modulated – nor the distance between X and Y – as from the followingconsideration:

There are reasons to assume (following Rizzi (1982), Rizzi & Shlonsky (2007)) that, in Italian typelanguages, the extraction site of the subject is low in the clause structure and does not correspond tothe high (Cardinaletti 2004) subject position (a criterial position from which movement cannot occur)

Then, the distancebetween the two extraction sites is not that different in SRs and ORs:

With also movement through a vP-peripheral edge position in both cases, not indicated.

[+R…. [TP pro T ….. [vP <S> v [VP V <O>]]]]

Morphosyntacticfeatures:Thespecialstatusofattracting features

Rather the crucial property is whether the Target (X) and the Intervener (Z) share some relevantfeatures, where relevant =

featureattractingsyntacticmovement

Moreover overtness does not seem toplay any special role:

◦ Despite its overt expression, Case morphology/Case markers do not amelioratecomprehension of object A’-dependencies across an intervening lexical subject in typicallydeveloping children (cfr. Romanian, Hebrew, Greek; also in SLI, HI, and agrammatism, cfr.Hebrew, German, Russian).

◦ Overtness in gender distinction does not ameliorate the comprehension of object relativeseither (nor of wh which-questions), nor of other object A’-dependencies such as e.g. ClLD inItalian (/Romance…), Hebrew Topicalization (see below).

“Whatmakesthingseasier”Something overt? A so called cue as in cue-based accounts?

The real question is: What counts as a cue?

If overtness were the real relevant concept, why not all overt distinctionsshould play a role? E.g.:

- Why does gender only play a role in Hebrew but not in Italian?◦ >> one distinction more in Hebrew than in Italian. But then:

- Why doesn’t the overt Case distinction help in Hebrew? It adds a distinction,internally to Hebrew (DO distinct from S, P-DP vs DP) and also compared to e.g.Italian (DO is not distinct from S, both are DPs).

Features triggering syntactic movement seem to play a crucial role in making adistinction relevant in the establishment of the long distance movement createddependency.

This isinfactapossible characterizationofwhatmaycountasacue,atleastinthistypeofmovement createddependency.

ClLD andinterventionincomprehensionandproductionANOTHEROBJECTA’ -DEPENDENCYINCOMPREHENSION

Onthecomprehensionandproductionofsomediscourserelatedstructures

From early on young children master the discourse conditions leading toappropriate production and comprehension of discourse related structures,such as CLLDs, passive, discourse appropriate use of null-subjects and of new-information post-verbal subjects.

They do so in compliance with featural Relativized Minimality/fRM operatingin a stricter fashion than in the adult system, in the spirit of Friedmann et al.(2009) approach and subsequent relatedwork just reviewed.

Let us now concentrate on CLLD

fRMandchildrencomprehensionandproductionofCLLDstructuresCLLD:

1.Comprehension: Summary of results fromcomprehension of CLLD in number mismatch conditioncompared to gender mismatch.

2.Production: Types of topics in children’s productions ofClLD with special focus on a-Topics.

ComprehensionofCLLDinNumbermismatchcondition(fromManetti,Moscati,Rizzi,andBelletti 2016)

• Number MismatchDP1 DP2 CL-V

SO: I cani il gatto lo mordonoThe dogssub the catobj himCL bite

OS: Ilgatto i cani lomordonoThecat.obj thedogssub himCL bite

Task: PVT

ComprehensionofCLLDinGendermismatchcondition(fromManetti etal.2016)

GenderMismatch DP1 DP2CL-V

SO: La bambina il principe lo fotografaThe girlsub,fem the princeobj,mas himCL,masphotographs

OS: Ilprincipe labambinalo fotografa

Theprince.obj,mas thegirl.sub,fem him.CLphotographs

◦ Ambiguity in number and gender match condition:Il gatto il cane lo mordeThe cat the dog himCL bite

Adults:ceilingperformanceinbothconditions,100%.

Children: correctcomprehensionofCLLDsupto70%.

Overallcomprehensioninmismatchconditions(fromManetti etal.2016)

70%100%

30% 0%0%

CHILDREN ADULTS

Correct Noncorrect

Correct Non correct

ADULTS 100% 0%

CHILDREN 70% 30%

Children’scomprehensionindifferentmismatchconditions:Gendervs Number(fromManetti etal.2016)

Gender Number

GendervsNumber

Gender

Number

• Children’s comprehension differs acrossmismatch conditions• Better comprehension of CLLD in Number mismatch

than in Gender mismatch(Accuracy: Number 88% vs 52%; p<.001)

Children’scomprehensionindifferentmismatchconditions:Gendervs Number(fromManetti etal.2016)

SOcomprehension appearsslightlybetterthanOS, butnosignificant effectemerged.

Accuracyinchildren’sresponsesGENDER NUMBER Total

SO OS SO OSTarget 63 55 101 92 311

56% 49% 90% 86%Non-target 49 57 11 15 132

44% 51% 10% 14%Total 112 112 112 107 443

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%

GENDER NUMBER

Thematchcondition(ambiguous)

• Inthenumber andgendermatchcondition (ambiguous):Ilgatto,il canelomordethecat,thedogit-Cl bites

- Children (appearto)allowforboth interpretationSOClV orOSClV, withaslight preferenceforSOClV

- Adults (correctly) allowed forboth interpretations onapar.

63%46%37%

CHILDREN ADULTS

Graph1

However, children’s behavior is notadult like(both interpretations would indeedbe correct >> preference), butrather, it is at chance, as indicated bythe mismatch condition (>> only onecorrect answer).Children cannot interpret thestructure, as the gender vs numberresults show.

fRMandNumbervsGender inClLD◦ Number mismatch intersectionof relevant feature is created between target and intervener,

accessible to the child

◦Gender mismatch inclusionremains

problematic for the child(1) Il gatto i cani lo mordono

the cats the dogs itCL bite (interpreted correctly)… +Top,+NP, +sing …+NP, +pl

(2) Il principe la bambina lo fotografathe prince the girl himCL photographs (interpreted at chance)…+Top +NP …+NP

(Illustrating with O S ClV, for simplicity)

SummaryofmainresultsincomprehensionofClLD

• Adults correctly comprehended all unambiguous CLLDs

• Children’s comprehension of CLLDs reached 70%accuracy:

◦ Word order SO vs OS did not play any significant role

◦ Featural mismatchdid play a significant role >>

children performed above chance in number mismatch (almost atceiling), and at chance in gendermismatch condition.

Numbervs Gender:SameresultsinClLD asinOrs (andwh-questions)◦ IfthefeaturesrelevantforfRM arethosetriggeringsyntactic

movement,asdisplacementisinvolvedintherelevantrelations,then,intermsoffRM:

Number isarelevantfeatureforthecomputationoffRM,becauseitparticipatesinthetriggeringofsyntacticmovement(S-Vagremeent), whereasGender isnot(inItalian,incontrastwithHebrew).

◦ Consistently,inCLLDundernumber/genderfeaturemismatchthesameresultsarefoundasin,e.g.,inthecomprehensionofObjectrelativeclauses.

Case.Hebrewtopicalization:etdoesnothelp.Sameresultsasinwh-questions

ObjecttopicalizationwithV-to-C(et-OVS).

ethapil ha-ze martiv ha-arie

acc the-elephantthe-thiswetsthe-lion

Thiselephant,thelionwets

SimpleSVO(S Vet-O)

ha-ariemartiv etha-pil ha-ze

the-lionwetsacc the-elephantthe-this

Thelionwetsthiselephant

et- andnon-etObjectwhich-questionsinHebrew(Friedmann,Rizzi&Belletti 2017)

InHebrewet-markedandnon-et-markedwhich-object questions arenotfullyunderstood by3;0-6;5 y.o.children, withnodifferencebetween thetwo.

et eize pil ha-arie martiv?

acc which elephant the-lionwets?

eize pil ha-arie martiv?

which elephant the-lionwets?

Comparable resultshavealso beenobtained inthecomprehension ofOVSsentenceswithtopicalized directobjectswithandwithoutet,comparedtosimple SVO.Seelater.

Case.Hebrewtopicalization:etdoesnothelp.

• Similarly to the developing children investigated on wh which-questions, all impairedpopulations (children with hearing impairment, agrammatic aphasics, Syntactic SLI) weresensitive to the presence of the object marker, otherwise they would have interpreted theOVS structures as SVOwith systematic below-chanceperformance.

• The Case information was detected, but could not be used to to build the A’-dependencyand hence to properly comprehend thestructures.

On the acquisition of object A’ dependencies. and experimental... · This is the elephant that...

Documents